In post 3674, Garmr wrote:I thought I found 1 case ank in post 3273 but it's just all theory talk kinda disappointing.
Just because you try to blow off my reasoning for why I'm scumreading you, that doesn't mean it's not a case.
In post 3674, Garmr wrote:He throws the word discredit around a lot but there's nothing in his writing to indicate something to credit. None of his post have any substance or weight behind them.
This is the same kind of shit you've been doing this entire game phase towards me. You twist around what I say and challenge it on your made up reasoning behind it. Your play reminds me a lot more of someone who just wants everyone to take me less seriously and a lot less of someone that wants people to lynch a scumread.
Even if your reasoning was true, twisting words around to fit whatever conclusion you already have is no less slimy.
In post 3674, Garmr wrote:His 3254 is him saying that points on mollie case aren't valid because it's not happening today basically. Apparently we are playing this day by day and not supposed to look back at previous days. 3479 is more theory
No.
1. SK-read on Mollie from Day 2 and/or 3.
2. Mollie makes a case on you on Day 4
3. You discounted that case based on SK-Read
4. When criticized, your addition was that her cases previously applied more to her than you.
That answers nothing. It says nothing about the case I was asking you about. You never made the connection between the two. It's a terrible reason to just discredit that case, especially when your response to being called on it is this:
In post 3232, Garmr wrote:You wouldn't know what scum was if it was beating you with a stick.
In post 3235, Garmr wrote:When your actually bring a argument I will consider debating with you. But as of right now I would rather lynch my top scum read as mafia aren't going for the sk like I thought.
In post 3239, Garmr wrote:Also it's pretty obvious you didn't think your vote through and just acted with out thinking otherwise you would of listed one point right off the bat.
This is in your next three posts after the original post I scumread you on (removing everything else since it has no relevance to this point whatsoever). You're not trying to figure out why I'm scumreading you, trying to convince me that you're right, or anything. What you were trying to do is try to intimidate me down from my stance or everyone else from voicing their opinion on it.
So no, that's not 'theory'. That's part of my explanation for why you're full of shit.
In post 3674, Garmr wrote:In post 3641, Ankamius wrote:In post 3637, Garmr wrote:@ank
Mollie hasn't provided you reasons either yet your letting her off the hook wha?
I'm singling out Josh_B's because his lack of reasoning is pinging a hell of a lot harder than anyone else's is.
In post 3655, Ankamius wrote:In post 3650, Josh_B wrote:In post 3567, Ankamius wrote:In post 3561, Josh_B wrote:I think Ankamius is scum. I might have been wrong about Mom. kind of like I have been on everyone else.
Show your work.
interactions between Ank and Garmr seem fake on Ank's side. Mom's interaction with Nero were not absolutely townish. Scum deaths have me rethinking who would likely be on their team.
The problem I have with your attack is that you call me scum, then just completely refuse to really explain why. That wouldn't be a problem if that had a basis in my predecessor, but then you just outright state that you had a townread on Mom, so your lack of willingness to explain anything is even more bizarre. Making vague statements without any kind of detail is basically the same shit as before and I'm not buying it.
Iso josh B in Ank iso there is no mention of why josh b is scum either or any reasoning why someone is his scum read. This hypocrite number one.
Ank is the lynch today.
His post are empty as fuck.
1. I generally don't make elaborate cases or explain myself until I'm either asked or I'm reasonably sure I won't be interacted with enough in a meaningful way to make hiding it useful anymore. I get my most accurate reads from personal interaction, so you can bet I'm never changing this.
2. It's hard to be a hypocrite about asking for why someone's scumreading me when no one ever asked me why I was scumreading Josh. Thanks for trying, though.